The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

Not sure about Corbyn but the way certain sections of the press hammered him for the remembrance day bow was disgraceful

https://www.rt.com/uk/321289-corbyn-...ce-sunday-bow/

Pretty desperate stuff.

Sure about the crooks and corporations pushing global taxes on the back of quack science.

Not so sure about a politician who has stood by his convictions for 30 years.

Now why does that not surprise me?

You voted Tory didn't you?

[Letters]

Obviously what you believe is RIGHT. What I believe is WRONG. I'm the deluded one, it couldn't possibly be you, could it?
Except yes, it could. Clearly. Because, by definition, if you're deluded by something you don't know you're deluded.

The science about global warming and man's role in it is pretty solid, the debate about it in science isn't over - nor should any debate in science should be - but it's not far off:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

Now, of course you will dismiss that link because you have to. Your confirmation bias is so strong that you have to ignore all the evidence about global warming and cling on to the scraps of evidence to the contrary

I'll just leave this here. Maybe you'll read it this time. Obviously you'll ignore or dismiss it because...well, because of what I said, ironically.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'll just leave this here. Maybe you'll read it this time. Obviously you'll ignore or dismiss it because...well, because of what I said, ironically.

That's the same link as yesterday. I already read that. What are you looking for? Link exchange? Only fools on forums talking shit about shit they know shit about do the link exchange thing. Oh look what expert I've got, here's what his agenda soaked arse has to say! Countered by, oh look what opposite arse motherfucker I've got, so somebody elses opinion says you are wrong fucker! You want to play that?

Here's your problem - which is why I state things bluntly with you and have a few manners for the rest.

"I'll just leave this here..." - One of your faves. Oh look, I have a piece of borrowed opinion that I'm sure is going to win me the Internet war. But I'm not going to present it in a way that encourages debate, instead I'll take the piss.

"Maybe you'll read it this time..." - I don't know if he read it or not, but if I assume he didn't then I get points in the Internet war.

"Obviously you'll ignore or dismiss it..." - I'm not interested what you are actually going to do or how you respond, I'm getting in there first so I can make the point I have borrowed, ignore your response in advance and score another point in the Internet war.

"Because of what I said..." - I'm going to grab as much of what somebody else said as I can and then pretend I said it myself, it's the cheapest way to have an opinion.

"Ironically..." - Oh yes indeed.

It's pretty obvious which bits have been ignored. Scan your own posts and make a list of the words you won't mention. Of course what I'm saying is vague if half the words have to be ignored. Funny little Tory.

[PGFC]

This years MROS award goes to N_Q, well played, sort of.

[Letters]

That's the same link as yesterday. I already read that. What are you looking for? Link exchange? Only fools on forums talking shit about shit they know shit about do the link exchange thing. Oh look what expert I've got, here's what his agenda soaked arse has to say! Countered by, oh look what opposite arse motherfucker I've got, so somebody elses opinion says you are wrong fucker! You want to play that?

I'd like you to back up anything you're saying. Your opinions aren't formed in a vacuum, they must be based on something. What?

I have an opinion that global warming is caused, at least in part, by man's activities.
I have done no scientific research on this matter but neither have you. Unless you happen to be a renowned global climate specialist on the quiet.

So, my opinion on this matter has to come from somewhere, as does yours.
In my case it comes from what I've seen and read, your opinion must also come from that.

I'm sure some of the information which forms the basis for your opinion is on the internet so yes, you could provide links. You already provided a link - or maybe told me to Google - Climategate so I did, found the original articles about the "scandal" and other articles about the subsequent investigations which found no wrongdoing.

Your opinion about this cannnot plucked out of thin air, it must be based on something. If we don't back up anything we say we can both just sit here all day claiming what we like.

EDIT: Your trouble (and this is wearyingly common) is you seem to decide what to believe first and then fit the available evidence around that, ignoring any that doesn't fit in with whatever you've decided.

[Niall_Quinn]

You still think this is a discussion about the so-called science of climate change, don't you?

Well it started with the idea being floated by a group of warmists that any opinion contrary to their own should be criminally outlawed. That's how this started. "Science" so flimsy it needs to be protected by law.

Tax. No surprise there. What do we know about tax? We know the rich can avoid it and the shortfall is made up by the poor. What does that mean? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But not just on an individual level. The developed nations have already leveraged pollution to the fullest extent to build an economic lock on the developing and under developed nations. Now we discover pollution is not a good thing and draconian measures are urgently required to "save our planet". Figure out what the euphemism means for yourself.

So they want to save the planet? So what's all this fracking shit about then, for example? We have the words, but what are the actions? Who are the people we are going to trust to save the world and what is their track record to date?

The science can be argued up and down and left and right, while the law still allows it at least, but what we really have here is a bunch of polluting fucks who want to impose global taxation on everyone bar themselves so they can, supposedly, curb pollution. At the same time they are pushing global trade agendas that would diminish the power of nation states to enforce their own laws (environmental or otherwise) by handing huge power to profit hungry multinationals. Rights the average citizen will not be entitled to.

I've talked about all of this, you must have missed it.

Meanwhile the environment won't play ball and routinely embarrasses the warmists. That's because their "science" is a computer model carefully tuned to "decide what to believe first and then fit the available evidence around that." Politicians were caught stealing. What did they get? A pay rise. Warmists have been caught fiddling the facts and figures. What did they get? A clean bill of health. Of course they did. You think anything is going to change just because officially sanctioned crooks are caught red-handed? I know, the BBC said everything was cool. So there you go. No case to answer. They also said there were WMD in Iraq but fuck that shit.

So we have lying, thieving, polluting bastards and their fellow travellers pushing this along. And if you dissent then today you might get a tin foil hat in the post, tomorrow you may be locked up.

Meanwhile pollution skyrockets on the back of ever more destructive energy policies. But, you know, any moment now Al Gore will be arriving to fix all this shit. At least we have Al Gore.

This isn't about the science. We are nowhere near the science yet. Do I think it would be a good idea if honest scientists got together with honest politicians and consulted with honest CEOs to bring environmental policies to the citizenry that would benefit us all by reducing pollution and protecting our environment? Shit yes. Who wouldn't want that, apart from the usual suspects?

Is that where we are now? Honest science, honest politics, honest business leaders, an open debate? No, we're at the opposite end of the spectrum, in the shitter.

Want to change that?

Stop voting Tory FFS!

I said all this already. Last time I'm repeating it.

[Letters]

You still think this is a discussion about the so-called science of climate change, don't you?

Well, as you dubbed it "so-called" it seems it is.
The science around this is pretty solid - again, I have not done any personal research but neither have you.
So my opinion has to be based on what domain experts tell me - and in science there is often a debate but in this particular area it seems to be close to unanimous.
Now, the 'powers that be' may well be using that information for their own purposes, they may want it to be true, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Some scientists are no doubt corruptable, but almost all of them? I don't buy it.
For one thing, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the consensus was that we're not causing global warming then the 'powers that be' would just use that for their own purposes instead. There is quite a lot of money in oil and other fossil fuels so that could be exploited too.
Are politicians and others using what the scientists are saying for their own ends? Of course. But that doesn't mean they're telling them what to say? Why bother? They could just as easily exploit things if they were saying the opposite.

Meanwhile the environment won't play ball and routinely embarrasses the warmists.

Well, you say that...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...year-on-record

That's because their "science" is a computer model carefully tuned to "decide what to believe first and then fit the available evidence around that."

Obviously they are models but do you have any evidence that their models are tuned that way? Again, we can just sit here making assertions all day without backing anything up if you want.

Warmists have been caught fiddling the facts and figures. What did they get? A clean bill of health. Of course they did.

No, they haven't. There were a few - literally a few - out of context quotes from emails which were investigated and no wrongdoing was found. But even if it was all a whitewash and that particular research was dodgy...so what? There is plenty of research out there on climate change, the idea that all of it is corrupt and bogus is ridiculous.

Want to change that?
Stop voting Tory FFS!

Oh yeah, things were just awesome under Labour...

And, as I keep saying, I didn't vote Tory - I voted for the local guy who I like. He does happen to be a Tory but that's not why I voted for him. Previously I've voted for Labour when we had someone who I liked who happened to represent that party. I don't really feel any loyalty to any of the main parties.

[Niall_Quinn]

Oh yeah, things were just awesome under Labour...

I need to talk to other people now, just in case any of this shit rubs off.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Would you both consent to a televised debate?

[Letters]

Would you both consent to a televised debate?

I'd be up for that. I see he's run away from the debate again.